Houston "The Great Unzoned City." (Dallas, San Antonio: homes, landscaping)

[WRM20]

Originally Posted by SanJac

I understand the desire for zoning. I grew up in unincorporated Harris County so I'm used to the "eclectic " nature of Houston. I see a doctor in Bellaire. I drive through a beautiful neighborhood off the loop. Then eventually hit a pocket of apartments/condos. Then turn on a street that has a body shop with about 50 cars in its parking lot spilling into the street. Is this poor planning or the lack of zoning?

What streets are the apartments and the body shop on? That will make it simpler to answer.

[SanJac]

Originally Posted by WRM20

What streets are the apartments and the body shop on? That will make it simpler to answer.

Apartments on Elm St. I think the body shop is on Maple Ridge?

[LocalPlanner]

Originally Posted by SanJac

Apartments on Elm St. I think the body shop is on Maple Ridge?

So I'll ask: is there something wrong with having the apartments and the body shop where they are? The body shop sounds like it's not treating its environment well, but some body shops don't do that...is it thus a performance issue or a location issue?

[SanJac]

Originally Posted by LocalPlanner

So I'll ask: is there something wrong with having the apartments and the body shop where they are? The body shop sounds like it's not treating its environment well, but some body shops don't do that...is it thus a performance issue or a location issue?

I’m not complaining. Just highlighting the fact there is a body shop right smack in the middle of a mostly residential area. I presume this is due to lack of zoning?

Here it is: https://maps.app.goo.gl/Ru9VZ6QYvtySbSHVA?g_st=ic

Apartments on Elm…just around the corner from the body shop: https://maps.app.goo.gl/yxyCneKYeFDP2Jdi9?g_st=ic

[Redlionjr]

Originally Posted by DabOnEm

DFW was able to diversify its economy and bring in many outside companies in large part because it was an attractive place to relocate thanks to the zoning its incorporated suburbs have. There's a reason why many of these new companies moving into the Houston area today are setting up in places with quasi-zoning/incorporation like The Woodlands, which is the most attractive area for corporate relocations in the metro outside the Inner Loop.

There is no point zoning inside the loop at this point. Let the city remain unzoned. The problem with the Houston area has long been the unzoned, unincorporated areas that have no plan outside of the thoroughfare map everyone knows about. Okay so a road goes here and a road goes there, but what is going to be built next to the road? It wasn't as big of a problem back in the day, but now that the people here make up the largest part of the Houston area there are many issues.

I don't necessarily think zoning itself would solve the issues (it would solve some) but becoming incorporated cities would tremendously, IMO. One thing being a city could solve is the big lack of sidewalks in the unincorporated suburbs. Kids should not be making dirt trails because they walk along the roads so much. Pretty unsafe but that's what unincorporated areas not in master planned communities will get you. The bare minimum.



Yeah but even those middle/working class DFW burbs are move liveable than their unincorporated counterparts in Houston. The ones in DFW often come with a local downtown area nearby (and many of these are building themselves up to be quite nice), along with basic living amenities like sidewalks, sensor street lights instead timed (which can often be wastes of time!), and faster emergency responses.

My biggest gripe with the landscape of Houston. The uniqueness of "no zoning" imo only works somewhat well in the loop. Most of Houston outside the loop (not areas near the loop either) is exactly what you described. Barren wasteland of strip malls, haphazard development with no rhyme and reason, lack of sidewalks, and islands of master planned communities. The Woodlands and Sugarland is like the exception to the rule. And that's a problem imo because that's where most citizens in this MSA reside.

[Johnhw2]

Lets distinguish between zoning enforced and paid for with taxes and private zoning where one has to own the land to put restrictions on it and the cost of those restrictions is borne by the owner of the land.

One is a way to maintain the status quo and put higher values on land with larger lot requirements and the other ir pure fr maker capitalism

[WRM20]

Originally Posted by SanJac

I’m not complaining. Just highlighting the fact there is a body shop right smack in the middle of a mostly residential area. I presume this is due to lack of zoning?

Here it is: https://maps.app.goo.gl/Ru9VZ6QYvtySbSHVA?g_st=ic

Apartments on Elm…just around the corner from the body shop: https://maps.app.goo.gl/yxyCneKYeFDP2Jdi9?g_st=ic

Those have all been there since at least the 70's, and it's one of the things that's just part of Houston. I was asking because I wanted to see if it was in Bellaire or not. Bellaire is the East side of Ferris. The apartments owuld have been fairly upscale when built, catering to the 20 something cocaine and party crowd.

I wouldn't mess with the body shop, the neighbor to the South is Stark Industries, and you might have an issue with Ironman or some other Marvel superhero

[LocalPlanner]

Originally Posted by Redlionjr

My biggest gripe with the landscape of Houston. The uniqueness of "no zoning" imo only works somewhat well in the loop. Most of Houston outside the loop (not areas near the loop either) is exactly what you described. Barren wasteland of strip malls, haphazard development with no rhyme and reason, lack of sidewalks, and islands of master planned communities. The Woodlands and Sugarland is like the exception to the rule. And that's a problem imo because that's where most citizens in this MSA reside.

Most U.S. suburban areas developed from the 60s to the early 90s look pretty much like you describe, except the parts within large planned private developments like The Woodlands (Irvine Ranch, Reston, etc.). This is regardless of whether those communities had zoning or not. The desires of the market (meaning you and me) during that time didn't value sidewalks, parks, landscaped road edges and parking lots, or "streetscape" generally, let alone mixed-use. Thus a huge chunk of American development looks like you describe.

Since the mid-1990s many cities have decided to try and improve themselves through streetscape, mixed-use, etc., and usually had to fight their own zoning ordinances to do it.

[DabOnEm]

Originally Posted by Redlionjr

My biggest gripe with the landscape of Houston. The uniqueness of "no zoning" imo only works somewhat well in the loop. Most of Houston outside the loop (not areas near the loop either) is exactly what you described. Barren wasteland of strip malls, haphazard development with no rhyme and reason, lack of sidewalks, and islands of master planned communities. The Woodlands and Sugarland is like the exception to the rule. And that's a problem imo because that's where most citizens in this MSA reside.

Exactly. There is no balance. If Houston had a balance (unzoned city but incorporated/zoned suburbs) then I think it'd be about 10 years ahead from where it is now. Add in a proper rail system and it'd be a wrap. clear alpha dog for the South versus sharing/competing with DFW and ATL.

Originally Posted by LocalPlanner

Most U.S. suburban areas developed from the 60s to the early 90s look pretty much like you describe, except the parts within large planned private developments like The Woodlands (Irvine Ranch, Reston, etc.). This is regardless of whether those communities had zoning or not. The desires of the market (meaning you and me) during that time didn't value sidewalks, parks, landscaped road edges and parking lots, or "streetscape" generally, let alone mixed-use. Thus a huge chunk of American development looks like you describe.

Since the mid-1990s many cities have decided to try and improve themselves through streetscape, mixed-use, etc., and usually had to fight their own zoning ordinances to do it.

You're looking at this through strictly a Houston lense because there are several examples of suburban cities developing in the 60s (even before) to the 90s and they valued basic living things like sidewalks. All of SoCal was like this. Even many of the DFW burbs when they started to grow had sidewalks, and they just added more streetscape improvements as time went on. This compared to Houston where it is still the bare minimum unless you're in an MPC or incorporated city. The streetscape improvements aren't as urgent because there is too much unincorporated land to cover and these MUDs don't care either (but you better keep paying them).

It's one thing I've noticed when I was researching this before and that's there were suburban areas developing before much of Houston did, yet they built their city with more quality. Like did no one from Houston back then get on a plane and take notes from these places?

[WRM20]

I was looking at incorporation dates for DFW suburban areas, and most of them were incorporated decades ago, which meant Dallas and Ft Worth were surrounded by incorporated areas. In the Houston area, there were not nearly as many incorporated areas, other than to the East, where Pasadena, Deer Park, Baytown, etc incorporated before 1950. There were essentially no incorporated areas to the North and West, probably due to a lack of density. Once the ETJ laws were passed, Houston was able to expand pretty much at will, while preventing any other incorporations, which has been a policy forever.

The end result of this is that the suburbs of Dallas, especially, were built in incorporated areas, or were annexed pretty quickly, with some amount of zoning enforced.

Here's a map I found showing the incorporated cities in Dallas County. Far different than Harris County. https://www.randymajors.org/city-lim...13&labels=show